Folivory, being a dietary constraint, can affect the social time of colobines. In the present study, we compared food items and activity budgets of two closely related species of colobines inhabiting South India, i.e. the Hanuman langur (Semnopithecus hypoleucos) and Nilgiri langur (Semnopithecus johnii), to determine whether folivory had an impact on social time in these species. Our study established that Nilgiri langurs were more folivorous than Hanuman langurs. Nilgiri langurs spent much less time on social activities, but more time on resting, although the social organization of S. hypoleucos was similar to that of the Nilgiri langur. The enforced resting time for fermentation of leafy food items may have reduced the time available for social interactions, which in turn affected the social time in Nilgiri langurs. By comparing the data from previous studies on other Hanuman langur species, we found that S. hypoleucos spent a similar amount of time on social activities as Semnopithecus entellus. Hence, the social behaviour of S. entellus and S. hypoleucos is phylogenetically highly conservative.

1.
Ahsan MF, Khan MR (2006). Eco-ethology of the common langur Semnopithecus entellus (Dufresne) in Bangladesh. University Journal of Zoology, Rajshahi University 25: 3-10.
2.
Altmann J (1974). Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227-266.
3.
Ashalakshmi NC, Nag KC, Karanth KP (2014). Molecules support morphology: species status of South Indian populations of the widely distributed Hanuman langur. Conservation Genetics 16: 43-58.
4.
Caselli CB, Setz EZF (2011). Feeding ecology and activity pattern of black-fronted titi monkeys (Callicebus nigrifrons) in a semideciduous tropical forest of southern Brazil. Primates 52: 351-359.
5.
Chetan N, Praveen KK, Vasudeva GK (2014). Delineating ecological boundaries of Hanuman langur species complex in peninsular India using MaxEnt modeling approach. PLoS One 9: e87804.
6.
Clutton-Brock TH, Harvey PH (1977). Primate ecology and social organization. Journal of Zoology 183: 1-39.
7.
Dunbar RI (1992). Time: a hidden constraint on the behavioural ecology of baboons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 31: 35-49.
8.
Dunbar RI (1996). Determinants of Group Size in Primates: A General Model. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
9.
Dunbar RIM, Dunbar P (1988). Maternal time budgets of gelada baboons. Animal Behaviour 36: 970-980.
10.
Dunbar RIM, Korstjens AH, Lehmann J (2009). Time as an ecological constraint. Biological Reviews 84: 413-429.
11.
Erinjery JJ, Kavana TS, Singh M (2015). Food resources, distribution and seasonal variations in ranging in lion-tailed macaques, Macaca silenus, in the Western Ghats, India. Primates 56: 45-54.
12.
Hanya G (2004). Seasonal variations in the activity budget of Japanese macaques in the coniferous forest of Yakushima: effects of food and temperature. American Journal of Primatology 63: 165-177.
13.
Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991). The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
14.
Hill RA (2006). Thermal constraints on activity scheduling and habitat choice in baboons. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129: 242-249.
15.
Hladik CM (1977). A comparative study of two sympatric species of leaf monkeys: Presbytis entellus and Presbytis senex. In Primate Ecology: Studies of Feeding and Ranging Behaviour in Lemurs, Monkeys, and Apes (Clutton-Brock TH, ed.), pp 323-353. London, Academic Press.
16.
Hylander WL (1975). Incisor size and diet in anthropoids with special reference to Cercopithecidae. Science 189: 1095-1098.
17.
Janson CH, Goldsmith ML (1995). Predicting group size in primates: foraging costs and predation risks. Behavioral Ecology 6: 326-336.
18.
Jay P (1965).The common langur of North India. In Primate Behavior: Fieldstudies of Monkeys and Apes (DeVore I, ed.), pp 197-249. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
19.
Johnsingh A, Manjrekar N (eds.) (2013). Mammals of South Asia. Hyderabad, Universities Press.
20.
Kamilar JM, Cooper N (2013). Phylogenetic signal in primate behaviour, ecology and life history. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B:Biological Sciences 368: 20120341.
21.
Karanth KP, Singh L, Stewart CB (2010). Mitochondrial and nuclear markers suggest Hanuman langur (Primates: Colobinae) polyphyly: implications for their species status. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 54: 627-633.
22.
Kavana TS, Erinjery JJ, Singh M (2014). Male takeover and infanticide in Nilgiri langurs Semnopithecus johnii in the Western Ghats, India. Folia Primatologica 85: 164-177.
23.
Kay RF, Hylander WL (1978). The dental structure of mammalian folivores with special reference to Primates and Phalangeroidea (Marsupialia). In The Biology of Arboreal Folivores (Montgomery GG, ed.), pp 173-191. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press.
24.
Khatun UH, Ahsan MF, Røskaft E (2011). Feeding behaviour and ecology of the common langurs (Semnopithecus entellus) of Keshabpur in Bangladesh. Proceedings of the International Conference on Biodiversity, University of Chittagong, pp 21-33.
25.
Koenig A, Borries C (2001). Socioecology of Hanuman langurs: the story of their success. Evolutionary Anthropology 10: 122-137.
26.
Korstjens AH, Lehmann J, Dunbar RIM (2010). Resting time as an ecological constraint on primate biogeography. Animal Behaviour 79: 361-374.
27.
Korstjens AH, Verhoeckx IL, Dunbar RI (2006). Time as a constraint on group size in spider monkeys. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 60: 683-694.
28.
Little KA, Sommer V (2002). Change of enclosure in langur monkeys: implications for the evaluation of environmental enrichment. Zoo Biology 21: 549-559.
29.
Majolo B, de Bortoli Vizioli A, Schino G (2008). Costs and benefits of group living in primates: group size effects on behaviour and demography. Animal Behaviour 76: 1235-1247.
30.
McNab BK (1978). The comparative energetics of neotropical marsupials. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 125: 115-128.
31.
Newton P (1992). Feeding and ranging patterns of forest hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). International Journal of Primatology 13: 245-285.
32.
Newton PN (1988). The variable social organization of Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus), infanticide, and the monopolization of females. International Journal of Primatology 9: 59-77.
33.
Oates JF, Davies AG, Delson E (1994).The diversity of living colobines. In Colobine Monkeys: Their Ecology, Behavior and Evolution (Oates JF, Davies GA, eds.), pp 45-128. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
34.
Oates JF, Waterman PG, Choo GM (1980). Food selection by the south Indian leaf-monkey, Presbytis johnii, in relation to leaf chemistry. Oecologia 45: 45-56.
35.
Pollard KA, Blumstein DT (2008). Time allocation and the evolution of group size. Animal Behaviour 76: 1683-1699.
36.
Raichlen DA, Gordon AD, Muchlinski M, Snodgrass JJ (2010). Causes and significance of variation in mammalian basal metabolism. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 180: 301-311.
37.
Ramachandran KK, Joseph GK (2001). Feeding ecology of Nilgiri langur (Trachypithecus johnii) in Silent Valley National Park, Kerala, India. Indian Forester 127: 1155.
38.
Riley EP (2007). Flexibility in diet and activity patterns of Macaca tonkeana in response to anthropogenic habitat alteration. International Journal of Primatology 28: 107-113.
39.
Rowe N (1996). The Pictorial Guide to the Living Primates. New York, Pogonias Press.
40.
Roy D, Ashokkumar M, Desai AA (2012). Foraging ecology of Nilgiri langur (Trachypithecus johnii) in Parimbikulam Tiger Reserve, Kerala, India. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology 1: 92-102.
41.
Sayers K, Norconk MA (2008). Himalayan Semnopithecus entellus at Langtang National Park, Nepal: diet, activity patterns, and resources. International Journal of Primatology 29: 509-530.
42.
Singh M, Singh M (1999). Studies on the Ecology, Adaptation, and Evolution of Sociality in Non-Human Primates of South India. Mysore, Department of Psychology, University of Mysore.
43.
Singh M, Kavana TS, Erinjery JJ (2012). Behavioral Profile of Nilgiri Langurs in Nilgiris. Final technical report. Tiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu Forest Department.
44.
Singh M, Roy K, Singh M (2011). Resource partitioning in sympatric langurs and macaques in tropical rainforests of the central Western Ghats, South India. American Journal of Primatology 73: 335-346.
45.
Singh MR, Singh M, Ananada Kumar M, Kumar HN, Sharma AK, Sushma HS (2000). Niche separation in sympatric lion-tailed macaques (Macaca silenus) and Nilgiri langur (Presbytis johnii) in an Indian tropical rain forest. Primate Report 58: 83-95.
46.
Snaith TV, Chapman CA (2007). Primate group size and interpreting socioecological models: do folivores really play by different rules? Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News and Reviews 16: 94-106.
47.
Snodgrass JJ, Leonard WR, Robertson ML (2007). Primate bioenergetics: an evolutionary perspective. In Primate Origins: Adaptations and Evolution (Ravosa MJ, Dagosto M, eds.), pp 703-737. New York, Springer.
48.
Sugiyama Y (1964). Group composition, population density and some sociological observations of Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). Primates 5: 7-37.
49.
Sunderraj SFW, Johnsingh AJT (2000). The Ecology of Endangered Nilgiri Langur (Presbytis johnii) on Mundanthurai Plateau, Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Tamilnadu, South India. Wildlife Institute of India final technical report. Tiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu Forest Department.
50.
Thierry B, Iwaniuk AN, Pellis SM (2000). The influence of phylogeny on the social behaviour of macaques (Primates: Cercopithecidae, genus Macaca). Ethology 106: 713-728.
51.
Umapathy G, Kumar A (2000). The occurrence of arboreal mammals in the rain forest fragments in the Anamalai Hills, south India. Biological Conservation 92: 311-319.
52.
Vandercone RP, Dinadh C, Wijethunga G, Ranawana K, Rasmussen DT (2012). Dietary diversity and food selection in Hanuman langurs (Semnopithecus entellus) and purple-faced langurs (Trachypithecus vetulus) in the Kaludiyapokuna Forest Reserve in the dry zone of Sri Lanka. International Journal of Primatology 33: 1382-1405.
53.
Van Schaik CP (1989). The ecology of social relationships amongst female primates. In Comparative Socioecology (Standen V, Foley RA, eds.), pp 195-218. Oxford, Blackwell.
54.
Vogel C (1971). Behavioral differences of Presbytis entellus in two different habitats. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of Primatology (Kummer H, ed.), vol 3, pp 41-47. Basel, Karger.
55.
Wrangham RW (1980). An ecological model of female-bonded primate groups. Behaviour 75: 262-300.
56.
Yoshiba K (1968). Local and intertroop variability in ecology and social behavior of common Indian langurs. In Primates: Studies in Adaptation and Variability (Jay P, ed.), pp 217-242. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.